Last playoff game against San Fran looked competitive to me. It was a thrilling yet heartbreaking game. It came down to who had the ball last, and we were playing with our most important guys on defense out and a rookie DE playing OLB. Hyde played very well last season but you can bet your ass Shields makes that pick at the end of the game and we probably end up winning and who knows what happens from there. We are getting close; just got to stay healthy.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules 

I doubt that very much. Most unsettled position on the team per Jerry Fontenot. I don't think they're any more confident than they were with what they had at S or ILB heading into last year. It's a huge risk rolling into the year with no proven option and the most experienced one missing all OTA's.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

No proven option hmmmmmmm, If I recall we have a guy that played alot the past few years including a guy that we wona Super Bowl with, but I guess he is unproven as you say.

Originally Posted by: dhazer 

You think Andrew Quarless is a proven #1 TE? BTW, if that is what you really think and it must be...How proven is Frank Zombo? Do you even know where that proven SB winning OLB is these days?

Andrew Quarless in 2010...

21 receptions 238 yards and 1 TD in regular season

In 4 games in the playoffs during our SB run:

5 receptions 46 yards ZERO TD's

Yes, I can see how proven he is. His best game with Rodgers at the helm for a full game was 3 for 35. He is a PROVEN commodity. 3 for freaking 35. That is his career best with Rodgers at the helm for a full game. So, his highest total of receptions with Rodgers is THREE and his most yards with Rodgers is THIRTY FIVE. Proven! Case closed!

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I suppose you are correct. It's obvious the Packers can't win without a top-flight tight end. You have proved your point and history is on your side. An elite quarterback, very good running back, and a very good to great wide receiving core combined with an OK-to-decent tight end group simply isn't enough for the Packers to achieve much of anything. If only the Packers had an elite tight end, they could be champions. 2010 was a complete fluke, and should have an asterisk by it in the history books.

Either way, I still don't think an elite tight end would make anywhere near as much of a different as a good to very-good defense would. It's not even close.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

You might be right about the D but how many high picks do you want to shuttle to Dom's careful hands? The defense has had issues for years and several attempts to fix it have failed. That is TT, that is Dom and now it's Mike McCarthy also.

Have you recently seen the team head into the season with such a terrible group of TE's?

We're all about to see just how much the lack of a TE means to the Packers. The year we won the SB we had a good D. I would say we don't have one now. Let's see if the pairing of no good TE and no good D works out for us. Many here think Quarless and his ring justify him and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt we can win it all without a good TE this year. We shall see.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

There's no definitive proof of anything. There is no single path of becoming a championship football team. Every team is going to have weaknesses, especially one paying an elite quarterback and a few other top of league players. If a tight end group of Quarless, Rodgers, Taylor, Lyerla, Bostick, Stoneburner, et al. is the Packers biggest weakness, most people would be more than OK with that. Recent history has proven that the Packers can still be very deadly with a below average tight end group. Of course it would be better if the Packers had a more "proven" option, but that doesn't mean they can't win without one. It's also not unreasonable to think one of the players currently on the roster might actually be pretty good. The factors that will limit the Packers chance at becoming champions again are:

1.) Injuries
2.) Defense (basically every position except cornerback, maybe)
3.) Offensive Line
4.) Coaching
5.) Tight ends

One could probably even find other items to put in front of number 5. The gap between #5 and 1-4 is substantial. The Packers could still easily lose with Jimmy Graham and a horrible defense. Last year's Super Bowl is a pretty good example of that. Personally, I would rather the team go in with a mediocre tight end group with some potential and a very good defense, than an elite tight end and a horrible defense. It's unrealistic to expect a team to have it all, despite how much we would all love that. It's not the way the league is designed to function.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Right, there may be no proof... but there rarely ever is in anything. However, when I type something that I strongly believe (no real proof) I'm a F'ing blankety blank but when you or others do it (no real proof) you're right and all of a sudden there is a board that has a mind that is anti what I'm all about even though neither side has no real proof. It's fine that you find strength in numbers. I know you do. That is why I played the Schefter, Werder, Davis, Florio card. You think that this is all of you against me and me only. It wasn't. I was hardly alone, maybe here, but not among people who are very rigorous followers of the NFL. That was meant to remove your collective superiority complex against my way of thinking by citing the numbers on this board were in your favor. I even was told that someone here asked about 20 of his Packers friends about this. BTW, if it was truly insane, that question would never have been posed to 20 of his Packers fan buddies. That poster got some confidence that I was wrong by asking 20 of his friends who follow the Packers if that made sense. Of course, I know none of these people and all of them might not be able to spell cat if spotted the c and the t but that is validation I'm wrong. However, 4 respected members of the NFL media are just nobodies and I get mocked for stating that to buoy my point. Again, if you don't see the richness of the irony.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I would add SAFETY to the top of your list...ILB is up there, too. DL might be up there also. TE is the only one you mentioned that is a skill position that plays with Aaron Rodgers. We may have the weakest overall receiving unit in the NFCN when the TE is factored in. Again, Packer fan thinks that Green Bay is superior in this position group because that's how it was when we had Jennings, Jordy, Driver, Cobb, Jones and Finley. We aren't the same anymore. We've changed...not a little....a lot. I'm not so sure WR is such a great strength. I love Cobb and I really like Jordy... the rest I'm not so sure about. I have high hopes for Abby and Janis and am worried about Adams.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

One big point is... it is silly to say Quarless is good because we won the SB with him at TE. It is also silly to say we don't need a good TE to win the SB, if the defense in 2014 isn't anywhere near as good as it was in 2010. We may need the TE position to be a great strength with our weak D this year. Having a weak TE and a weak D won't be a good combo.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

What? These are the type of responses that don't even merit responses. I'll just let you have your space there.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

I'll continue riding with Schefter, Werder, Nate Davis and Mike Florio on this one. We're the "stupid" group for sure. Packers are "well stocked" and ready to roll at TE. Oh, and even if they aren't there is so much overwhelming talent on O, plus, don't forget we have Aaron who makes everything all better to cover all of our deficiencies. So, instead of accentuating Aaron's abilities we're going to just drain them and hope we don't drain them enough to compete with the Seattle and SF's of the world. We think that much of him that he's got enough.

No Jimmy Graham news... So, it is assumed Graham did not appeal his decision of being a TE at 7 million for the franchise tag, yesterday. Tuesday the 15th is almost here.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa